[Nepomuk] RDF Geo vocabulary extensions

[Dan Brickley]

Hi folks

Could you do me a favour, and take a look e.g. at Sindice's SPARQL
endpoint or other large repositories of public RDF data, to find out
what impact your changes would have on deployed RDF?

There is also btw work happening in RDF WG around clarifying
datatypes. I'll investigate whether it might be possible to tighten
the range without making older stuff look like bad data...

cheers,

Dan

On 5 September 2011 22:10, Martin Klapetek <martin.klapetek at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any update on this?
>
> --
> Marty K.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 16:05, Sebastian Trueg <strueg at mandriva.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> we are thinking about including the geo ontology into SDO[1] for being
>> installed alongside other default ontologies on every linux system.
>>
>> However, for it to be used in Nepomuk[2] we require an extension. Of
>> course we could just put them into a separate ontology but I feel that
>> it would be cleaner to have them in the geo onto if at all possible.
>>
>> The actual extension we need are properly set ranges on the literal
>> properties as we treat properties without range definitions as
>> "abstract" properties that cannot be set. (On the desktop we need to be
>> a little more closed-worldly than on the web)
>>
>> Is this something you would consider adding to the official ontology?
>> And if so would it be possible for us to package a trig'ified version of
>> the geo ontology in SDO? What is the licence of the onto?
>>
>> (by trig'ified I mean that the ontology would be put into its own graph
>> accompanied by a metadata graph the way we do with all our ontologies.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sebastian
>>
>> [1] http://nepomuk.kde.org/
>> [2] http://oscaf.sf.net/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nepomuk mailing list
>> Nepomuk at kde.org
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
>
>